Portage approves District Court agreement that pays $70,000 a year for 10 years

Portage District Court was on the second floor of what is now the Portage Public Safety Department building on Shaver Road.File photo

PORTAGE, MI – With no discussion, the Portage City Council has voted for a financial agreement with Kalamazoo County over the closing of the Shaver Road district court.

The agreement calls for Kalamazoo County paying Portage $70,000 a year for 10 years to cover Portage's costs by the court closing. The funding will come from fines and costs District Court assesses for Portage ordinance cases.

The plan was approved May 7 by the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners and is up for a vote May 20 with the Kalamazoo City Commission.

It amends a 1997 agreement that allowed the county to rent the Portage property for $1 a year plus maintenance costs, while in exchange keeping a court in Portage "in perpetuity.”

But Portage officials and council members said that the court’s closing was going to cost the city about $40,000 in rental income and another $30,000 for “time impositions” by staff having to make court appearances at District Courts downtown.

The district courthouse closed in March after the retirement of Judge Carol Husum and came after years of debate if the courthouse should remain. The decision was the result of the state deciding last year to eliminate one district court judge position in Kalamazoo County through attrition.

The District Court agreement sparked a brief dispute on the Portage City Council at its April 23 meeting after some council members had objected to Mayor Pro-tem Claudette Reid calling them before a county commission meeting and questioning them about the proposal.

Reid defended her actions, saying she was merely trying to determine if there was any truth to the rumors that council members had expressed an opinion. She was calling them as the mayor pro-tem because Mayor Pete Strazdas was out of town and the county board was going to be discussing it April 16.

The end result was that council members insisted they had not made any decision yet on the proposed District Court agreement.

Tuesday night’s action was the exact opposite in tenor. No comments were made about the proposal and it was approved on the consent agenda, which are items taken up on one vote with no discussion.